Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[BlackCat]

This does not change the fact that GG up = temp up.

No, you can't do that when it's obvious that there are other unknown mechanisms that has an effect.

No it is not linear. One molecule of GG will reflect many, many photons of energy, depending on its lifespan in the atmosphere. This means that heat recycling in the atmosphere is increased over time, resulting in continuing temperature increase from a single increase in GG concentration at any one point in time. Thus, if you continue to increase GG concentration, temperature increases exponentially. It is effectively compound interest.

That isn't true. CO2 absorbs the energy and converts it to both mechanical energy and new emission of IR. This IR isn't only in the band that CO2 can absorb, so heat will dissipate.

[ricketyclik]

That isn't true. CO2 absorbs the energy and converts it to both mechanical energy and new emission of IR. This IR isn't only in the band that CO2 can absorb, so heat will dissipate.

Yes, some of the IR isn't re-recycled by GG gasses, but some is, hence increased GG = increased recycling = increased temperature.

[ricketyclik]

No, you can't do that when it's obvious that there are other unknown mechanisms that has an effect.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean that because there are other mechanisms at play that increased GG doesn't mean increased temp?

[BlackCat]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean that because there are other mechanisms at play that increased GG doesn't mean increased temp?

No, just that you can't quantify the amount that the GG contributes. Did you bother to read the last link ? They estimate that a doubling of CO2 will attribute a 0.3 to 0.5 degree.

[ricketyclik]

No, just that you can't quantify the amount that the GG contributes. Did you bother to read the last link ? They estimate that a doubling of CO2 will attribute a 0.3 to 0.5 degree.

Yes I did, and I repeat: the assumption underlying this figure is that the atmosphere is one homogeneous layer, when in fact it is comprised of several layers, all with varying concentrations of CO2 and water.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This argument considers the atmosphere as an homogeneous continuum, when in fact it is much more like a layer cake, where CO2 (and water) concentrations vary considerably from layer to layer.

Also, have you considered that a 7 degree rise represents about a 2.4% increase in heat in the atmosphere? Not much overall, but enough to throw some serious spanners in some major ecosystems (including ours).

Given that every model tends to overstate the feedback effects as a positive and that flux meaurements achually show the contrary, I'll wager Lindzen's take on the veracity of the models vs. some BS meteorologist major. We used to laugh at you pikers back in the day.

[ricketyclik]

... and that flux meaurements achually show the contrary...

Oh yes? I'd be interested in reading those findings, please share.

I'll wager Lindzen's take on the veracity of the models vs. some BS meteorologist major. We used to laugh at you pikers back in the day.

I'd better confess here and now I didn't major in meteorology, but did a degree with some in it (Bachelor of Engineering). I have, however, learnt a thing or two about it since graduating 13 years ago and working as a water resources engineer/hydrologist for 12 of them.

However, piker or not, this does not give guidance either way as to veracity. Also, you have introduced Lindzen in a somewhat haphazard fashion without actually addressing my criticism of the argument BC was making with his link, which of course is standard form for sceptics. You should feel lucky I'm bothering to reply to such low-level argument.

Lindzen is an interesting case though, and I freely admit he will forget more about the atmosphere than I will ever know. He is the only scientist with the relevant expertise and no obvious ties to fossil fuel whom I've come across who is a sceptic. I must admit, I am somewhat puzzled and intrigued by him.

However, his central premise (for which he is famous) known as the Iris hypothesis has been shown to be false.

[HalfLotus]

The good news is that Americans are wising up to AGW fear-mongering.

I have to chuckle at folks who think skepticism is an extremist viewpoint, or that the Climategate and IPCC-gates were much ado about nothing.

Latest Gallup polls show that public fear of catastrophic AGW is dropping like a rock.

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

Apparently the "Booga, booga!" routine is wearing thin on Americans.

[Theben]

I'd prefer to discuss the science rather than hurl insults, can you manage that?

Skeptics don't use science. As for insults, no thanks. I tried being polite and explained away all the Skeptic bs earlier, so read the thread before you jump in or STFU.

[HalfLotus]

Phil Jones lies, gets owned by Swedes.

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.
Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

However, his central premise (for which he is famous) known as the Iris hypothesis has been shown to be false.

Not really the dissenting work shows very very slight positive feedbacks. While not negative as Lindzens work shows far from the magnitude used inthe models. Thus the crux as always comes down to the postive feedbacks to external forcings. Nothing so far is providing evidence that the guesses/estimates employed for these feedbacks are in any way grounded in realism and that they continue to be vastly overstated.

[ricketyclik]

Not really the dissenting work shows very very slight positive feedbacks. While not negative as Lindzens work shows far from the magnitude used inthe models. Thus the crux as always comes down to the postive feedbacks to external forcings. Nothing so far is providing evidence that the guesses/estimates employed for these feedbacks are in any way grounded in realism and that they continue to be vastly overstated.

Yet another case of the sceptics putting the cart before the horse. The Iris hypothesis wasn't included in any modelling until Lindzen hypothesized that it was a negative feedback. Upon measurement it was found to be a positive feedback.

[BlackCat]

ricketyclik, you haven't really answered my question - since 1500 the temperature has risen and has doubled each century - wich mechanism is behind this ? Secondly, this raise goes into the latest century - how can you dismiss this mechanism and say that CO2 is the only source ?

[Spinko]

Skeptics don't use science. As for insults, no thanks. I tried being polite and explained away all the Skeptic bs earlier, so read the thread before you jump in or STFU.

Could ou please be more polite, I also suggest you read the MM papers and understand what they are about.

[ricketyclik]

ricketyclik, you haven't really answered my question - since 1500 the temperature has risen and has doubled each century - wich mechanism is behind this ? Secondly, this raise goes into the latest century - how can you dismiss this mechanism and say that CO2 is the only source ?

OK, firstly, show me the figures that show that, as I haven't seen anything that suggests that to be true, beyond the fact that there was a warm period in the Middle Ages, a cooler one in the 1600's - 1800's, and then warmer in the 20th century.

However, assuming what you say is true (and the beloved Lindzen has a different take):

No climate scientist has ever claimed that greenhouse gas concentration is the only mechanism governing world surface temperature. There are a number of others, including orbital variation, tilt variation, solar activity variation, plate tectonics resulting in ocean and atmospheric circulation variation, and biological activity to name a few that spring to mind.

On OO's point about the feedback loops: I've been following this issue for about 20 years. When I was first taught about the mechanisms, several negative and positive feedback loops were pointed out to me. Quantifying them has always been problematic, and the global circulation models (GCM's) are usually an educated guess, if they've had them in at all.

(As an aside, I've been given many guided tours of GCMs in my professional capacity, and I've been quite disappointed in their sophistication. They have, however, improved significantly in the last couple of years, mainly in that they've moved from being predominantly statistically based to physically based).

However, the educated guess remains the best we have, and as such ought to be at least considered. It is interesting that temperature rise in the second half of the 20th century has tracked the upper envelope of GCM predictions almost exactly in timing and magnitude.

Furthermore, of the dozen or so significant feedback loop discoveries over the last 20 years that I'm aware of, only one was negative (I can't recall which one that was at the mo'). This is in line with paleological findings - temperature increases and declines tend to be self-perpetuating, until an outside perturbation changes their direction.